Tuesday, 09 February 2010

"[Obama] has ignored our history and our heritage, arrogantly declaring to the world that we are no longer a Christian nation. He has elevated immorality to a new level, setting aside the entire month of June to celebrate gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender pride. He now threatens to change our law to allow homosexuality in our military ... He's apologized to the Arab world for our past, subjugated our national sovereignty by bowing down to the king of Saudi Arabia. He has pursued a socialist agenda by taking control of private companies and pushing a national health care plan with a public option. Backed by a willing Congress, he's bought off our senators and representatives with our own money in an effort to mandate his agenda."

I have several times blogged about my view that the real Christian agenda is not to block same sex marriage or hate crime laws but to criminalize homosexuality in the United States. I have also stated in the past that American Evangelical support for the Uganda nightmare is about creating a framework and a model for similar laws out of Congress.

And now, of course, the influential American Family Association has finally planted its flag in the ground on this topic and has launched a campaign to convince its Christian followers that homosexuality should be criminalized for the same reasons that we criminalize illegal intravenous drug use: both are sources of disease, crime, corruption of youth and extreme immortality.

This past weekend's nightmarish Tea Party Convention, spearheaded by Sarah Palin, surfaced many frightening issues and criminalization of homosexuality was among them.

And at the heart of this Christian campaign is a very rarely discussed fact that somehow never enters the mainstream debate on gay rights.

And it should. Christians would prefer that we don't discuss "it" because "it" is the legal grounding that will eventually provide the foundation for a direct assault in Congress and the Supreme Court.

And while most eyes in the media and in "progressive" leadership focus on Roe Vs. Wade, the more vulnerable target even higher on the Christian Republican and Tea Party agenda is Lawrence vs. Texas.

And the fact is that despite the 2003 Supreme Court decision (Lawrence vs. Texas) that invalidated sodomy laws nationwide, 13 mostly "Tea Party" states have defied the Supreme Court and still have sodomy laws that may be rarely enforced but remain on the books. And these 13 statutes will provide much of the ammunition and framework that Christian Tea Party Republicans will use when they eventually go after Lawrence vs. Texas.

With hopes high that the Christian right will retake the White House and Congress in 2012, the executive director of the American Family Association writes:

"The First Amendment has been around for 219 years, and I don't hear anybody saying we've got to get rid of it because it's so out of date. The issue is not how old a law is but how right it is. The fact remains, however, that in nearly 25% of the states in the Union, sodomy is still in the criminal code as illegal behavior.

"Think for a moment of the current social controversies that could potentially be avoided if homosexual conduct was still against the law. Gays in the military: problem solved. We shouldn't make a place for habitual felons in the armed forces. End of discussion, end of controversy. If someone objects, ask them which other felonies the military ought to overlook in screening recruits. Gay marriage: problem solved. We should never legalize unions between any two people when the union is forged specifically to engage in felony behavior. Would we sanction, for instance, the formation of a corporation whose stated purpose was to import illegal drugs? Gay indoctrination in the schools: problem solved. We don't want to raise a generation of schoolchildren to believe that felony behavior is perfectly appropriate. That's why we spend so much money warning students about the danger of drugs. Hate crimes laws: problem solved. We wouldn't throw a pastor in jail for saying that illegal behavior is not only illegal but also immoral. For instance, he's free to say that murder is not only contrary to man's law but also to God's law. End of the threat to freedom of religion and speech. Special rights for homosexuals in the workplace: problem solved. No employer should be forced to hire admitted felons to work for him. End of the threat to freedom of religion and freedom of association in the marketplace. This list could actually be extended, but you get the point. Laws not only curb dangerous and risky behavior, they keep such behavior from being normalized, sanctioned and endorsed by the rest of society, and as such render an enormous benefit to a healthy culture."

"The promos for the old movie "American Graffiti" asked the question, "Where were you in '62?" If the same question were asked about the United States, we'd have to answer: in a much better, saner and healthier place when it comes to criminal sexual conduct."

Most of our community continues to write off AFA and others like them as extremist fringe organizations that are not who "we" really are as a nation.

This is a conclusion that is among the reasons the gay rights advocacy industry has failed us. We write the nuts off while the nuts are taking us down state by state.

Open your eyes, dudes! Homosexuality criminalized in the United States as it is throughout Africa and most of the Muslim world? Ridiculous? Far-fetched?

As of today, February 9, 2010, legal same sex relationships are banned in 40 of our 50 states, and "sodomy" remains quietly criminalized in Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan (felony punishable by 15 years in jail for the first conviction, and life imprisonment for the second conviction), Mississippi (felony punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment), Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Virginia.

Enforceable? No. If Lawrence vs. Texas is overturned? Not only enforceable but a very solid State's Rights framework for national legislation.

Wednesday, 03 February 2010

Perhaps the core reason for the robust and enduring nature of American bigotry is the uniquely American view that knowledge and education are for pussies. We mock intelligent politicians--we even question their ability to lead--but we celebrate idiots like George W. Bush and Sarah Palin. And my favorite defense of Bush is that he is secretly intelligent and just plays dumb to be popular.

Find me another democracy where one of only two governing parties crusades against science and reason and crusades for fear and superstition.

In fact, it is something of a miracle that some degree of freedom has survived in this nation when you consider that we only have two political parties and one of them is currently—and proudly--hanging its hat on legalized bigotry and mythology over science and reason. A recent study revealed that more than half of the Republican members of Congress actually claim to believe that humans and dinosaurs co-existed some 6,000 years ago. I say “claim” to believe because I don’t believe they really do believe such nonsense but are just playing to the morons who keep them in office.

Nonetheless, it is disturbingly disappointing and toxic to democracy that our President doesn’t dress these morons down daily and instead panders to them and seeks compromise. Freedom is based in knowledge, education and reason and is always under threat from ignorance, fear and blind faith. Only fascists and theocrats would argue this--even when they call themselves "patriots" and "Republicans".

History and knowledge would beach the current war against equality. It really wouldn't take much.

God help almost every argument made by Republicans and Evangelicals if facts and history were to be examined.

Certainly the greatest irony weighing down on the current "Don’t ask, Don’t Tell" "debate" is that one could easily argue—and many historians have done so—that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the end of legal discrimination targeting people of color, women and Jews was born in the United States military beginning with the Second World War and continuing with Korea and Vietnam. And, in fact, it is exactly for this historic reason that the repeal of DADT so frightens Evangelicals, Republicans and even some Democrats.

The truth of ending DADT is that it will have an unstoppable ripple effect on the rest of society as young men from all parts of this nation, of all faiths, of all colors and of all socio-economic backgrounds discover in the showers, in the trenches, in the sleeping quarters, in the mess halls and in the bars that we are all the same and that the fear mongering fostered by older generations is simply rubbish. They will learn quickly that sexual orientation hardly defines who you are or how you behave. Fear, hate, ignorance and persecution however very much define who we are--remove them and we are left with tolerance, productive diversity and brotherhood.

No fewer than 25 nations today know this and have openly gay men and women serving in their armed forces. All evidence suggests that DADT is rubbish; and there is absolutely NO evidence to support it--other than fear and stupidity.

It was in a necessarily and increasingly diverse military during World War II, Korea and Vietnam that young boys from Alabama discovered that a black man could save your life and that Jews from New York did not actually have horns.

Americans of all colors, shades, religions and nationalities suddenly found themselves thrown together and in the trenches in defense of democracy and freedom. Tolerance was essential to survival and over the course of a few years during the 1940s, America came face to face with its spectacular diversity--and it made us stronger and better.

By 1948, the United States military was racially integrated--a move that was born in the military and preceded society by almost 20 years.

Millions of GIs learned that we are all cut from the same human cloth and then they carried this message home from the barracks to the nation.

As new generations emerged from the Second World War, Korea and then Vietnam and then came to power across this nation, racism, sexism and antisemitism began to whither. It was a difficult and sometimes violent road, but thanks to integration and diversity in the military, it became an inevitability that changed American society for the better and forever.

This is our history, a history that easily exposes the silliness, the lies and the irrational and ungrounded fears of those who would fight for the kind of environment in the United States Armed Forces that was exposed for its destructiveness some 70 years ago. And yet here we are again, as if yesterday never happened.

History teaches us that it is not diversity that threatens national security, it is bigotry. Church leaders and Republicans are well aware of this fact which is why they work so hard to blind their constituents and protect their power with endless deafening and blinding Bible thumping.

As for why they do this? Easy. Diversity and tolerance are the hobgoblins of fascism.

And why does Obama and Congress keep delaying the end of DADT and continue to call for further "research" and discussion on DADT? That is a very good question and not one I can answer. They are playing some disgusting, immoral and unethical political game with the dignity, rights and lives of gay Americans and for that they should be ashamed and for that Obama will go down in history as a disappointment at best.

Monday, 01 February 2010

Unless the gay community is extremely lucky, at some point over the next few days the credibility of our lives and our causes will suffer a stunning setback that may haunt us and profoundly hurt us for months and even years to come.

And it is all about The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), the famously gay-inclusive United Church of Christ, virtually every major gay blogger including Mike Rogers, Andrew Sullivan, Andy Towle and Pam Spaulding--all rushing to defend Mancrunch.com from the horrible homophobia of CBS and Super Bowl.

The best possible outcome is not that CBS changes its mind and runs the ad, the best case scenario will be that GLAAD officially becomes a running joke.

I'm going to venture (a hopeful) guess that not one of the gay players in this looming tragedy has even bothered to visit the mancrunch.com site. Mancrunch says it is a "gay dating service", CBS has rejected their ad, homophobia is at play!

In case you've had your head up your ass these past few days, you are unaware of the fact that CBS has rejected a 30-second $2.6 million Super Bowl ad from a gay dating service. CBS says the ad is inappropriate and not in line with its broadcast standards.

Deafening cries of homophobia have stormed across this great land of ours like some Biblical plague of locusts. Andrew Sullivan is gearing up for visits to FOX, CNN and MSNBC to condemn the homophobia of CBS and defend....and that is the issuse...what will he be defending?

The problem, dear readers, is that Mancrunch.com is not a gay dating service. Mancrunch.com is a gay sex service targeting closet cases and married men.

Apparently, GLAAD and the mindless hordes of gay bloggers and gay journalists have not bothered to visit the site.

Sure, almost everyone has appreciated the nature of this publicity stunt and what a very clever stunt it is. Submit an ad with two seemingly straight men in a clownish-way-over-the-top way-too-"gay" make out session knowing that it will be rejected so that you can issue a press release accusing CBS of homophobia and then let media games begin. And boy did they ever, with GLAAD leading this Custer's Last Stand of a charge.

Unfortunately, the media and the gay world overlooked one very crucial point: a sex site targeting "straight" married men and closet cases should be targeting the Super Bowl.

Some bloggers and journalists have questioned why a gay dating site would want to advertise on the Super Bowl, allegedly the most heterosexual of all televised events. This is a question asked by idiots who did not look at the site. What better place to find black men on the down low and closeted married Evangelicals?

Heck, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Ted Haggard, Tony Perkins, Alan Chambers, Peter LaBarbera and James Dobson are all members of Mancrunch.com--and we know they will be watching the Super Bowl. It is the most manly thing of manly things to do.

On it's website GLAAD proudly explains that the organization "is dedicated to promoting and ensuring fair, accurate and inclusive representation of people and events in the media as a means of eliminating homophobia and discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation."

How exactly does demanding Super Bowl airtime for a sex site for men on the down low serve that mission? Since when did promotion of extra-marital sex and closet life become a means to eliminate homophobia and discrimination?

Mancrunch.com's logo tagline: "Man Crunch is the premier service connecting men with other men and allowing them to open up about the down low."

For those of you unfamiliar with the term "on the down-low" (or "DL"), it refers to any activity or relationship kept discreet. Specifically, it may refer to:
Keeping an act, action or some other piece of information a secret.
Sexually it refers to men who identify as straight, but have sex with men on the side without disclosing this to their female sexual partner(s).

The first line under the Man Crunch Inc. "terms of service"? "Man Crunch Inc. ("we," "us" or "Man Crunch") owns and operates the Man Crunch.com web site (our "Site"), on which we provide an interactive way for like minded users to explore whether they wish to meet each other, chat with each other and/or explore extra-marital relationships."

Shame on CBS for rejecting this "service". Can you imagine all the African American Super Bowl viewers who would have benefited from learning of this service customized just for them and their wives and kids?

Last week, the states of Indiana and Utah made great strides against gay rights. Oprah and The Today Show provided a soap box for the Haggard family furthering the the cause of leaving homosexuality through Jesus. And GLAAD and the gay blogosphere focused on defending the rights of a sex service for closet cases to advertise on the Super Bowl.

Tuesday, 12 January 2010

If you've followed this blog for a few years, you know that I've been boycotting American Idol, money maker extraordinaire for one of the global generals of homophobia, Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch's media empire that includes most British and Australian tabloids, The New York Post, the Christian Republican Wall Street Journal and FOX is a genius at siphoning off billions of dollars from gays and then using the money to finance his war against gay rights. Among his pink dollar sucking masterpieces: GLEE, AMERICAN IDOL and Elton John.

But I must at long last cry uncle on American Idol.

But you would be wrong to think the reason is Ellen Degeneres, at least not directly.

Nope. Ellen is not the reason I will now become a dedicated follower of American Idol. Season Nine.

Jesus is the reason.

Christians nationwide are warning FOX that by promoting homosexuality as normal through the addition of Ellen, Christians nationwide will stop watching AI.

Oh? Really? I don't often say this at my age, but the very thought has precum dripping out of my dick.

Will the nation's highest rated ever weekly TV series actually experience a huge drop in ratings as Danny Bull Gokey, Fantasia Burrito and Carrie Underwood Deviled Ham fans go flocking to another network? Christians have a big problem here. Sure they can hide under hooded sheets, behind burning crosses and in the Closet, but Nielson Ratings will not let them hide from hypocrisy. The ratings will tell. And I think the ratings will tell that gay-hating Christians are sucking up for their weekly dose of queer with enthusiasm.

On the other hand, AI may actually become worth watching if Christians do indeed stop watching. For the first time in American Idol history, talent may actual prevail. With Evangelicals and strict Catholics gone, only thoughtful, discerning viewers will be left to vote. Weeping mediocrities who thank God and Jesus each week will no longer take votes away from men and women who can actually sing.

Ironically, the paper agrees that Adam Lambert was by the far the more talented singer but the wholesomeness factor defeated him and delivered the title to Kris Allen.

Talent be damned--and in the eyes of Christian American--really damned--for all eternity, in fact.

"Lambert's male-on-male activities garnered the majority of 2009 Idol news coverage," reports The Christian Post. But "rather than distance themselves from what many American's consider perverse behavior and increase the show's image as family entertainment; the producers of American Idol went the opposite direction to make the show edgier, more trendy.
Like it or not, the multi-talented DeGeneres is more known for her same-sex sexual preference than any expertise in the music business.

"The most visible change in the show is one more step in making sexuality the prime topic when discussing American Idol.
Call them ignorant, homophobic, whatever, the fact remains that fewer families will view the upcoming Idol season because young girls and their traditional families are uncomfortable with the topic of homosexuality."

The Christian Post is "confident that the producers of American Idol will be shocked when their market share has cratered, and will in all honesty find a dozen other reasons for the drop in ratings. After all, what successful television producer could have a clue what wholesomeness is as long as they see promoting homosexuality as a virtue."

And those were the words that moved me to the dark side. How could I not watch American Idol? It's a win win situation.

Consider the options.

The ratings remain intact clearly demonstrating that the Christian factor is a bunch of hooey. The ratings take a nose dive and Murdoch loses billions. Talent finally prevails after years of crap performers who love Jesus.

Tuesday, 05 January 2010

Remember the tragic story of Dr. Victor Frankenstein? Playing God, Victor made himself a monster. And then the monster killed everything the good doctor loved, leaving a trail of death and destruction in its wake. Victor's sin was not making the monster, Victor's sin was playing God.

With that in mind, the raging debate on how American Christianity and American financial aid influenced pan-African criminalization of homosexuality and its gay genocide companion seems irrelevant to me. It's done. Dr. Yankee Doodle Frankenjesus has done his job importing the scourge of American religion-based bigotry to the barely functional societies of black Africa.

The only question that now concerns me? Who and how will we hold American Christianity responsible for playing God and making the monster?

African Christians have convinced themselves that homosexuality is an American import like Hula Hoops and Madonna. Of course, it's not homosexuality that is the American import, it is government-sponsored homophobia.

American Christians--from rural missionaries to prominent national Evangelical leaders like Rick Warren--have spent the last few decades lecturing African governments on how to stop the sinful horrors of homosexuality that infect the American landscape from infecting the innocent cultures of black Africa.

And now that the monster is born and threatening mass murder on a Hitlerian scale, Dr. Frankenjesus mocks us with faux regret.

What will American Christianity do to atone for it's monstrous sin? And to what degree will our supposedly ethical society demand accountability from those among us who have done no less than American fascists of the 1920s and 30s who helped finance and legitimize the emergence of the Third Reich?

Furthermore, what will we learn as a nation from the irresponsible hate mongering of American Christianity that will deliver tens of thousands of gay corpses in Africa but is unquestionably also responsible for thousands of gay bashing victims within our own borders?

Freedom of religion was intended to protect followers of religions from persecution, not legitimize religion-based hate mongering and now genocide.

So called Freedom of Religion has been used to justify a mountain of heinous crimes against humanity and even our progressive President seems incapable of facing this horror film come to life reality. We are all so terrified of the Frankenjesus monster.

As we move into the second decade of the 21st Century, let us "pray" that the barbarism of religion--so appallingly exemplified and modeled by American Christianity can be contained by democratic moral and ethical principles.

In Africa, Dr. Frankenjesus has shown himself for what he truly is--in Burundi, Uganda, Ghana, Rwanda, Nigeria and too many other African nations--in fact a total of 37 African nations have already criminalized homosexuality. And most of the nations are still receiving lavish financial aid from the Obama Administration and American Evangelical churches.

The true nature of American Christianity is clearly reflected in the nightmarish mirror of Africa, and most recently Uganda.

Uganda is the true face of Rick Warren and Exodus International. Make no mistake about it.

Scott Lively, the founder of Abiding Truth Ministries, a conservative Christian organization and the author of a book that claims that homosexuality is a driving force behind Nazism, recently spoke with NPR.

"I've been to Africa many times actually. I'm a missionary, and I was invited to speak at a conference in Kampala, the capital city of Uganda. While I was there I had the opportunity to address members of the Ugandan Parliament regarding this bill that was proposed at that time. They were considering how to address what they perceive as a rise of aggressive political activism from American and European gay activists. And my advice to the parliament was to go the other direction from what they did to actually go on a proactive positive message promoting the family, promoting marriage, etcetera, through the schools," explained Lively.

Lively admits to NPR that he advocates the criminalization of homosexuality but he defends himself by claiming that African government should focus on rehabilitation and not punishment--once the arrest is made. Lively's trip to campaign for the criminalizaton of homosexuality was paid for through tax exempt dollars of course.

NPR asks Lively if he thinks that his views played a role in the new Uganda death-sentence legislation.

Lively protests: "I wasn't consulted on this law before they drafted it. I happened to be there for a conference dealing with the issue generally. They had asked me, you know, what is this homosexual movement? How come these people are coming into our country with this? How have they been able to achieve their advances in other countries, so that we can effectively prevent them from doing the same thing to our country? My approach was proactive and positive on the side of promoting the family model, the marriage model."

NPR then asks Lively what his reaction was when he heard that the death penalty was being proposed for so-called aggravated homosexuality, for certain acts, and that it was proposed to turn people into the police for not reporting what they believed to be homosexual behavior?

Lively says: "My interest in this topic, and my opposition to homosexuality, is not coming from a place of opposition to individuals based on how they want to define themselves. It's based on the public policy ramifications of mainstreaming something that I believe is destructive to society and harmful to individuals."

"The law in Uganda is extreme, even by African standards, but the fallout may be a preview of Africa’s own version of a 'culture war,' " explains one African journalist.

"Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, and their neighbors are connected by mobile populations and religious networks. Many influential leaders in Rwanda are, in fact, Ugandan; they grew up in Uganda, speak English, and hear voices like Stephen Langa, Scott Lively, Martin Ssempa, and Rick Warren coming across the airwaves. That even includes Rwandan President Paul Kagame; similarly, his wife grew up in Burundi, then lived in both Kenya and Uganda.

"The connections are evident on the op-ed pages of Rwanda's newspapers."

"These homos are probably running out of Uganda and coming to Rwanda, where there is no specific law that prohibits them from practicing this forbidden habit," wrote one contributor to The New Times, Rwanda's state-owned paper.

"Just like Ugandans have passed the antigay bill, Rwandans too should follow this path in order to maintain the integrity and dignity that we have held for all these decades."

American missionaries have been teaching their monstrous bigotry throughout these nations for many decades and most recently supported by billions of dollars in financial aid from Washington, begun by the Bush Administration and now continuing under the Obama Administration.

The blood of gay Africans is on the hands of American Christianity but also on the hands of Washington--including the hands of our "African" American President who daily "signs" checks that support the governments that are moving swiftly to commit mass murder of gay Africans.

THIS JUST IN!

In late breaking news over the holidays, the Ugandan leadership is considering a softening stance on homosexuality based on threats from the EU to cut off badly needed financial aid.

Uganda's ethics and integrity minister Nsaba Buturo said the revised law would most likely make life in prison the maximum penalty for offenders. "There have been a lot of discussions in government regarding the proposed law, but we now think a life sentence could be better because it gives room for offenders to be rehabilitated," he said. "Killing them might not be helpful," he added.

Monday, 14 December 2009

In the sometimes seemingly hopeless war against American bigotry and homophobia, the largest city in Bushland and the nation's fourth largest city drew a line in the sand this past weekend electing the first openly gay mayor of a major American metropolis.

In short, history was made--not for gay rights but for democracy.

Houston turned its community back on virulent Republican, Evangelical and Catholic homophobia. And this city of more than 2.2 million Texans solidly defied the stereotypes of African American and Hispanic homophobia.

According to official census figures, less than 3 percent of Houston's registered voters are gay. Over 25 percent are African American and over 37 percent are Hispanic Catholics--and yet just over 53 percent of voters delivered victory to a gay woman over a Black man.

According to one Houston pundit: "Houston is the winner because Annise Parker's prior experience will serve her well as Mayor. Parker, a native Houstonian, has already served the city for over a decade as a City Council Member and as the current City Controller. Prior to entering public service Parker spent twenty years in the oil and gas industry. Parker will need to draw upon this experience to lead Houston through lean economic times and position the city to be a leader in new energy development. Houston is the winner because it did not succumb to bigoted fear-mongering and homophobia. Yes, Annise Parker will become the first openly-lesbian mayor of a major U.S. city. However, Houston voters demonstrated, for the 7th time in Parker's case, that they can elect candidates based on their experience, qualifications and abilities, without regard to their sexual orientation. Houston is the winner because it has elected an eminently qualified public servant as its next mayor. We are all winners because fear-mongering and homophobia lost."

I would echo that sentiment: as Americans we are all winners because for the first time in a very long time American voters--and American voters in a very Red state, defeated "fear-mongering and homophobia."

Standing with her partner of 19 years, Kathy Hubbard, and their three adopted children, Mayor-elect Parker told the press on Saturday night: “Tonight the voters of Houston have opened the door to history. I acknowledge that. I embrace that. I know what this win means to many of us who never thought we could achieve high office.”

Throughout the campaign, Ms. Parker tried to avoid making an issue of her sexual orientation and emphasized her experience in overseeing the city’s finances. But she began her career as an advocate for gay rights in the 1980s, and it was lost on no one in Houston that her election marked a milestone for gay men and lesbians around the country.

Several smaller cities in other regions have chosen openly gay mayors, among them Providence, R.I., Portland, Ore., and Cambridge, Mass. But Ms. Parker’s success came in a conservative state where voters have outlawed gay marriage and a city where a referendum on granting benefits to same-sex partners of city employees was soundly defeated.

Furthermore, during the final weeks of the campaign, a group of African American pastors partly financed ($40,000) by Parker's Black opponent, viciously attacked Ms. Parker for what they called her gay agenda and two separate anti-gay advocates sent out fliers in the mail calling attention to her support from gay groups and to her relationship with her partner.

Political strategists said that to win, Mr. Locke needed to carry a large majority of the black vote, which is usually around a third of the turnout, and to attract significant support from conservative whites, many of them Republicans, who are also about a third of the voting mix here.

The crowd at Ms. Parker’s acceptance speech included dozens of young gay men and lesbians who had volunteered on her campaign. Many were elated with the sense of history being made. “It’s a huge step forward for Houston,” said one of the volunteers, Lindsey Dionne, who is lesbian. “It shows hate will not prevail in this city.” Robert Shipman, who is gay and worked long hours for Ms. Parker, said: “The diversity in this room, it’s not just gay people, it’s gay, straight, black, white, Jew, Christian, Muslim, every kind of person. It took all of us to get to this point.”

For his part, her opponent was gracious in defeat, calling for unity after what had sometimes been a heated campaign. “We have to all work together to bring our city closer and closer together,” he said. Ms. Parker appeared to have cobbled together a winning coalition of white liberals and gay people, who were expected to turn out in large numbers.

Regardless of who did turn out, it is noteworthy that the supposed throngs of homophobic blacks, Hispanics, Catholics, Evangelicals and Republicans that dominate Texas and Houston politics simply did not materialize.

Monday, 30 November 2009

Frankly, I am shocked by the the emerging furor in the gay community over Adam Lambert's now famous (or infamous) nationally televised kiss. Sure, his was not the first gay kiss on national television--but his was the first real one, between two real gay men.

In fact, too real.

CBS censored the kiss even though they have often shown the kiss between Madonna and Britney Spears. CBS defended this act of censorship based on two notions: the first is that the "gay" kiss between Madge and Brit was not "real" and second, the FCC may still fine ABC for allowing two real gay men to actually kiss during Prime Time. All parties concerned insist no homophobia is at play. And all parties have gay "experts" to support this argument.

Let me start by stating clearly and plainly that as far as I'm concerned Mr. Lambert is the only high profile gay activist in America today. He is what Joe Solmonese should be. And he is being betrayed by too many voices in the gay community as "too gay". Lambert is everything we should all be: true to himself, unashamed of his passions and proud of his talents.

By now you've surely read the endless chatter about America's double standard. MTV, ABC, CBS and NBC will happily broadcast Hip Hop artists feigning anal sex with their bitches. Everyone from Black Eyed Peas to Beyonce to Justin Timberlake will air fuck and parade around in extreme S&M gear, rappers will sing tributes to rape and not a word is uttered, but a gay man plants a kiss on another man and all hell breaks loose. It's predictable. It's ridiculous. It's hypocrisy. It's the truth about how breeder America--even the so-called liberal gay friendly media--really sees our lives, not natural but deviant.

But when gay pundits attack Adam as too gay? Houston, we have a problem.

In fact, the Adam Lambert saga has surfaced an epidemic of queer Uncle Toms, wallowing in their own homophobia and afraid of their own sissy and bull dyke shadows.

Jennifer Vanasco, editor in chief of website 365gay.com, says Adam Lambert's performance hurt the cause of gay marriage in the eyes of mainstream Americans "who think gay life is exactly what (he) portrayed on the American Music Awards."

ABC, defending its censorship of Lambert over a musical performance significantly more tame than dozens of others by straight artists, justifies it's position by pointing to the many gay bloggers and gay pundits who are angry at Lambert for feeding the fears of a homophobic nation, jeopardizing the cause of gay rights.

Are you fucking kidding me?

If after all this "visibility" and "progress" of the past few years, we still tremble in our boots when one of our kind dares to be himself publicly then what exactly have we achieved? Lambert did not get sexy on Sesame Street, he did it in the context of musical performances highlighting rape, fucking and near naked women.

What meaning can we find in the murders of our sissy brethren from the decapitated kid in Puerto Rico to shot in the head 15-year-old Lawrence King in California if we ourselves take the "being too gay is asking for it" approach?

Shame on every gay man and woman who challenges Adam Lambert's honesty as too gay. Let us rather challenge Ellen Degeneres, Anderson Cooper and Joe Solmonese for being too fucking straight.

Tuesday, 27 October 2009

When I read about yet another school banning productions of RENT or THE LARAMIE PROJECT, books like AND TANGO MAKES THREE or a Gay Straight Alliance because the word "gay" is deemed "R" rated, I am much more disturbed, saddened, frightened and sickened by the reaction of our friends than of our enemies.

As a Jewish kid living in the 1950s, the antisemitic slurs of Christians were hurtful and frightening but they were also "them" vs "us". Hate mongering from bigots was easily defined and emotionally and psychologically marginalized as idiocy. Even as a child I understood that the language and behavior of bigotry could be physically dangerous but I also understood that it came from bad people and stupid people and that it was not true.

So imagine the struggles of gay kids faced with homophobia from the authority figures who claim to be their advocates and protectors.

The problems, as I see it, is that when our advocates--gay and straight--in America's schools argue against censorship and in favor of freedom of speech in the face of attacks on "gay" friendly plays, books and activities, they miss the point by a mile and the collateral damage is oftentimes deadly. A gay child sees that his identity is a political football and not of the same merit of his straight peers.

When RENT or AND TANGO MAKES THREE are "censored", the issue is child abuse and the mental and ultimately physical health of queers kids. School authorities must stand their ground on those arguments, they must communicate to "our" children that who they are as gay kids is normal, healthy and whole--not a political or constitutional issue to be debated as a free speech or freedom of religion issue. It is so much more profound than that.

Those who would censor school activities that teach acceptance and, more importantly, the humanity and normalcy of gay kids are child molesters and abusers and must be treated as such. That is is the critical message that must be delivered to gay kids--and to their heterosexual peers.

Parents who attack a production of RENT or fight to rip copies of so-called gay-friendly books off library shelves, books that communicate the normalcy of diverse sexual orientation, must be shamed and even prosecuted as child abusers. And when gay advocates argue these cases as civil rights issues, they betray the trust of gay kids who are growing up in world that measures their mental health development in terms of a Constitutional amendment rather than the basic human right that it is.

As our gay children struggle to build identities for themselves and self-esteem we owe them nothing less than the same concern we show for the abuse directed at heterosexual children. And Evangelical and Republican parents who assault "our" kids in the open forum of a public school are no less despicable than any other child abuser or child molester.

Censoring diversity is not a political or religion issue, it is a childhood mental health and development issue that our society betrays; and it is mostly our friends who are guilty of this crime.

Monday, 26 October 2009

Last Thursday night I attended a performance of the spanking new Broadway musical, MEMPHIS. The story concerns the birth of rock & roll off Beale Street but mostly focuses on the "theft" of rock & roll from the black clubs of Memphis during the late 1940s and early 1950s. One of the climactic moments in the show occurs when a white man kisses a black woman in a very public place. Rage, violence and a media frenzy ensue. The woman ends up in a hospital; she survives but is traumatized for quite some time and seems afraid to even breath in public.

The mixed raced couple at the center of this story talks a lot about leaving their roots in Memphis and heading up north to New York where they can be legally married and walk down a street without fear of bashing. The woman finally flees to New York, a lynch mob at her heals over that kiss, where she can at long last live as an openly gay man a fully realized black woman.

There's also a lot of talk throughout the show about how good Christians should not tolerate "coloreds" stepping out of their place. According to Jesus, coloreds are not equal to decent white folks.

Why does everything these days seem to me like a metaphor for the plight of the gay man in America today? Maybe because everything is...

During intermission, an acquaintance of my theater companion, a young heterosexual woman in her mid-20s (the acquaintance, not my companion) loudly expressed relief that she "wasn't alive during those awful times."

"Can you imagine," she continued, "people reacting with such outrage and even violence over a simple kiss between two people in love."

I felt diminished, angered and stunned by this statement. I quietly responded, "Don't you think a gay man might feel differently about that? Gay men and women are being viciously attacked nationwide for public displays of affection by that very same brand of bigotry. You are living in 'these times'" I hissed at her. My companion kicked me the ankle.

But the acquaintance pretty much shrugged me off and starting talking about her bad back and what a wonderful therapist she had found and how her insurance company will not reimburse the full amount.

I wandered off to lasciviously ogle the dozens of gorgeous show queens and wait for the second act.

I hate intermissions--during sex, during shows, during anything. If I'm enjoying myself, let's keep going until it's done. Not a very patient boy here.

But at least this particular intermission allowed me the opportunity to look around and realize that the white man may have stolen rock & roll from the black man, but Broadway still belongs to the gay man.

And as I watched two hunky ex-stars from The Guiding Light exchange a kiss and a nose rub just a few seats away, I wondered if the young girl with the bad back knew or even cared that in Salt Lake City those two men might be arrested or even assaulted over a kiss by Mormon thugs in white shirts and black suits. In most of these United States, they could be legally thrown off campus, fired from their jobs, evicted from their homes or drummed out of the army. And they would have to go way up north to the snowy hills of New England to marry. They might even have been beaten to a bloody pulp by a gang of young black men in the borough of Queens.

Lucky for my friend's heterosexual acquaintance that she doesn't have to live in these "awful times."

Tuesday, 20 October 2009

Lawrence King, who was murdered during class last year at the age of 15 by a 14-year-old classmate was partly blamed for his own death because he fought his parents and school officials over his right to dress in a way that reflected his emerging adolescent persona of choice. Larry's father went on record blaming his son for being too gay and therefore "asking for it".

At historical and prestigious all-men's Morehouse College, gay students have been censored for wearing women's apparel.

A lesbian high school senior is being threatened with expulsion for insisting on wearing a men's tuxedo for her yearbook picture.

A Georgia teen is under fire by school officials for dressing "like a female".

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that Jonathan Escobar says he chooses to wear clothes that allow him to express himself, nothing more, nothing less. Skinny jeans, wigs, "vintage" clothing and makeup are the staples of his wardrobe. "I don't consider myself a cross-dresser," he said. "This is just who I am."

But the 16-year-old says an assistant principal at North Cobb High School told him last week he needed to dress more "manly" for school, or consider being home-schooled.

He had only been a student at the school for three days. "I told myself I can't accept this," said Escobar, who recently wore a pink wig to school.

Escobar said the assistant principal told him his style of dress had caused a fight between students at the school. Two days later, he withdrew himself from the Kennesaw school. "You can't wear clothing that causes a disruption," said Jay Dillon, spokesman for Cobb County schools. Dillon said he believed Escobar arrived at school in a dress and heels. But Escobar said he never wore a dress. He says he opted for "skinny" jeans all three days with flats.

The district lists the dress code on its homepage. The rule states that students should "refrain from any mode of dress which proves to contribute to any disruption of school functions." School administrators and teachers are the final judge of the appropriateness of clothing, according to the rule.

Escobar said he moved to Cobb County from Miami to live with his older sister. His Florida school didn't have an issue with the way he dressed, but his parents did. His sister, Veronica Escobar, urged her parents to let Jonathan come to live with her. Now she says she's shocked by what has happened. "I didn't think they would take it this far," Veronica Escobar said.

Jonathan Escobar says he wasn't a disruption in the classroom, but he attracted attention in the lunchroom. "Everybody was surrounding me," he said. On his second day of school, Escobar says he was pulled out of class to speak with a police officer who told him he was concerned about the student's safety. "They should've told the students to back off," Escobar said. "They should have never given me the option of homeschooling or changing who I am."

In his short time at the Kennesaw school, Escobar apparently made quick friends. Within days nearly 900 supporters had joined a Facebook group called "Support Jonathan." Many were planning to purchase a bright pink T-shirt with the same phrase. Escobar says he wants to be allowed to attend school and eventually graduate. But he doesn't want to stifle what he calls his art. "If I can't express myself, I won't go to school," he said. "I want to get the message out there that because this is who I am, I can't get an education."

America. Get over it. I've got some big bad news for you. Larry King and now Jonathan Escobar are as normal as the high school jock, the goth girl, the college preppy in his button down and the geek with his pocket protector. And as gay kids more and more emerge and come out at earlier and earlier ages, they will manifest the same behavior and explorations as every other high school kid, regardless of sexual orientation.

News Flash: Jonathan Escobar is not special, queer or fringe; he is an ordinary teenager struggling to find himself--and no different from the high school jock sporting a football jersey.

As gay emerges and becomes normalized, more "types" will join the already long list of adolescent costumes that prowl the halls of our schools and have since at least my teenage years. The James Dean rebel, the Glamrocker, the punk, the Goth, the Preppy, the Cheerleader and the Jock will be joined by the Boy George, the queer radical and lesbian lumberjack. It is who we are as kids and partly how we mark our territory, define our emerging personalities and find ourselves.

And if schools are going to single out the gay types, they had better single out the jocks in their jerseys and the Christian Promise Keepers in their slightly too long hemlines. The alternative is uniforms and one could argue for that and many schools do, but calling out Jonathan Escobar in a school that does not require uniforms is bigotry, child abuse and discrimination: nothing more and nothing less.